On the Killing of Larry King

On an otherwise ordinary day, Brandon McInerney came to school with a loaded handgun. During computer lab, the fourteen-year-old middle-school student moved to the back of the classroom, pulled out his pistol, and fired two bullets into the head of fifteen-year-old Lawrence King. The faculty and administrators of the E.O.Green Junior High School expressed their shock and dismay. How could such a thing have happened? Prosecutors labeled Larry’s murder a hate crime. Gay activists demanded that schools be made much more “gay friendly.”

Larry’s murder appeared to be a simple two-person crime drama: Larry’s friends cast Larry in the role of a tender-hearted innocent; Larry’s killer was typecast as a homophobic primitive – someone far less evolved than the liberal adults who were quick to heap scorn upon him. Brandon McInerney was dismissed as a clueless gay basher – as the warped product of an insensitive swaggering American male ethos. The scolding gay-activist choirmasters and their liberal amen chorus couldn’t see that they too had Larry King’s blood on their hands.

Why Was Larry Slain?

On March 29th, 2008, America’s newspapers published an Associated Press article filed from Oxnard, California. The opening paragraph reads as follows:
“Larry King was a gay eighth-grader who used to come to school in makeup, high heels and earrings. And when the other boys made fun of him, he would boldly tease them right back by flirting with them.” [Emphasis added]

In short, Larry was a hand grenade in high heels. The well-intentioned adults who encouraged Larry’s cross- dressing hijinx never imagined that they were leading him on like a lamb to slaughter.

The AP story goes on to tell us that “Comic Ellen DeGeneres, who is a lesbian, said on her talk show Feb. 28: ‘Larry was not a second-class citizen. I’m not a second-class citizen. It’s OK if you are gay.’”

But Larry wasn’t just gay in a matter-of-fact sort of way; Larry was an erotic provocateur. His feminine attire and his effeminate mannerisms radiated confusing sexual signals in every direction. He was openly and aggressively flirtatious with boys who were struggling to establish secure masculine personas. What Larry really needed just then was an experienced gay male friend to tell him that he was playing with dynamite. What Larry got was Jerry Dannenberg, superintendent of the Hueneme School District, who said: “If girls are wearing jewelry, you can’t stop boys from wearing it too. Each gender has the right to wear what the other does.” (AP, 3/29/08)

Carolyn Laub, executive director of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, offered that “With young people coming out at younger ages, schools – especially our junior highs and middle schools – need to be proactive about teaching respect for diversity based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The tragic death of Larry King is a wake-up call for our schools to better protect students from harassment at school.”

Does the ideal of “respect for diversity” demand that all the boys at school have no opinions about Larry’s effeminate exhibitionism? According to the AP reporter, Larry responded “bravely” to name calling “by flirting with them [his critics] and teasing them.” Larry’s friend Miriam Lopez, 13, recalled that “Larry was brave enough to bring high heels and makeup to school and he wasn’t afraid of anything.”

With every pose and mannerism the cross-dressing eighth-grader made a mockery of the virtues to which the other boys had sworn allegiance. The day before his death, Larry had openly approached the younger Brandon McInerney and expressed his affection for him, classmate Eduardo Segure told the Ventura County Star.

If Larry had flirted with the other boy, “that can be very threatening to someone’s ego and their sense of identity,” observed Jaana Juvonen, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angles. But at Larry’s middle school the adults encouraged Larry to express his budding sexuality. If Larry’s provocative behaviors threatened the sense of identity of other adolescent males, if his weirdness destabilized the equilibrium of his male peers, well that was just too bad for the normal boys whom the administration expected to be “mature” and “respectful” of the “diversity” of Larry’s flamboyant eroticism. The staff and faculty didn’t see Larry’s persistent flirtations and provocative displays as something akin to harassment. They thought Larry was cute. Because he seemed more fragile than the other boys, the adults categorized Larry as a victim of bullies.

A Few Words About Bullying

It’s a rare kid who has never been bullied. Kids endure name calling, teasing, exclusion and bewilderment about how to make friends. Because it is so common, adults may accept bullying as an unexceptional part of growing up. There were always cliques and geeks, the “in” crowd and the outsiders.

The hallmarks of bullying are an imbalance of power and a difference in emotional tones. All the power and aggression may seem to be on one side, but the underlying dynamic may be far from simple – the two parties may be engaged in a complex emotional exchange in which the “victim” is the driving force.

Dr. Sherryll Kraizer has made a specialty of at-risk children. She says of bullies that “Sometimes they are children experiencing life situations they can’t cope with, that leave them feeling helpless and out of control.”

Brandon McInerney was described as a typical eighth-grader – sometimes silly, and fun to be around. He had trained to be a lifeguard, took martial arts classes and had enrolled in the Young Marines, which is similar to the Army’s Junior ROTC. Brandon’s parents had divorced in 2002 after a history of feuding. Each had filed restraining orders against the other. Months before Brandon was born his father was accused of shooting his mother in the elbow. They were married despite the gunshot wound. Brandon’s mom had a drug problem.

So Brandon was a social kid who was working at pulling together a normal masculine persona without the benefit of a stable male role model. The last thing he needed was the unwelcome attentions of the school’s most notorious cross-dressing homosexual.

Dr. Kraizer continues: “Not all children are equally likely to be victimized by bullying behavior . . . Some children actually seem to provoke their own victimization. These children tease bullies, make themselves a target by egging the person on, not knowing when to stop and then not being unable to effectively defend themselves when the balance of power shifts to the bully.

“Children who are not bullied tend to have better social skills and conflict management skills . . . They tend to be more aware of people’s feelings . . .”

Larry King’s flamboyant cross dressing – his makeup, his jewelry, his sexually confusing flirtatious manner – made a mockery of the effort the other boys were making to construct normal masculine personas. Larry was a reckless sexual provocateur. When the normal boys were critical of his odd behaviors, Larry would chase them and flirt with them. The “responsible” adults at E.O.Green Junior High School thought Larry was a darling.

Masen Davis, executive director of the Transgender Law Center, informs us that “more and more kids are coming out in junior high school and expressing gender-different identities at younger ages.” Then Mr. Davis added: “Unfortunately, society has not matured at the same rate.” Some people need reminding that junior high schools are packed to the rafters with immature young people who are struggling to pull together cohesive gender identities. These kids are tormented by self doubt; they do not enjoy the confidence that comes from long sexual histories; they are uncertain about themselves and their futures. E.B.White called adolescence “the melancholy time of not knowing.”

The percentage of kids at E.O.Green Junior High who were working on heterosexual personas may have been as high as ninety-eight percent. The pioneer sex researcher, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, pegged the percentage of folks we think of as homosexuals at 4%, but the captive populations Kinsey studied – convicts and mental-ward patients – were top-heavy with gays when Kinsey did his research. That’s because aggressively enforced of anti-gay morals statutes and the consensus among mental-health professionals that homosexuality was a mental disorder, had pushed large numbers of gays into these captive populations. Without the frequent police raids on gay clubs and the commitment of gays to mental institutions by worried parents, Kinsey’s estimate of the distribution of gays among us would have been fewer than the four percent he cited. The oft cited figure of ten percent is a deliberate misuse of Kinsey’s observation that ten percent of men have an occasional homoerotic thought enter their heads. That’s a far cry from what any sane person considers a meaningful definition of the word homosexual. The inflated figure is tossed about to give the gay agenda more stature.

So the student population in Larry King’s school was overwhelmingly heterosexual, but immature and just emerging as a group of sexual beings. They were struggling with self doubt, eager for social acceptance and sensitive to any insult to their fragile pride. They spent their school days together in close quarters; they were not there by choice: the government compelled their attendance.

In the midst of this cauldron of fretful, immature, hormonally unbalanced teenagers, Lawrence King landed like a bomb – a weird, impish, sex bomb.

“In interviews, classmates of the two boys at E.O.Green Junior High School said Lawrence had started wearing mascara, lipstick and jewelry to school, prompting a group of male students to bully him. ‘They teased him because he was different,’ said Marissa Moreno, 13, also in the eighth grade. ‘But he wasn’t afraid to show himself.’” (New York Times, 2/23/08)

Larry was years past puberty; he was fully aware that his flamboyant cross dressing was packed with erotic implications. A female can tone down her mode of dress to the point of near-neutral eroticism, but a male who tricks himself out in female attire is never neutral; he is presenting for public consumption a conspicuous and conscious erotic performance. Larry was not an innocent; he was fully aware of the effect he was having on other people. He continued his public performances because he enjoyed the attention it brought him – both the shocked rejections and the tender commiserations. This is the transvestite exhibitionist who would pursue his male critics and flirt with them. Anyone who really loved this kid would have counseled him to tone it down.

But Larry was of no mind to tone anything down; he was intent on fine tuning his act. Some insight can be had from an unrelated New York Times article about “the infamously debauched” fop Sebastian Horsley, wherein Mr. Horsley observes, “Dandyism, you know, you do it for yourself, but it requires a reaction or it wouldn’t exist.” (N.Y.Times, 3/30/08)

Of a recent trip to Japan, Mr. Horsley opined:
“They don’t look at you in the street. They think it’s rude, so I walked around Tokyo causing no sensation whatsoever. I got back really enlightened. I do what I do to get a reaction. I don’t do it to provoke, necessarily.”

Certainly Larry King didn’t mean to provoke a lethal response to his challenging exhibitionism, but he was definitely a willing actor in a drama that turned horribly tragic. Though slight of build, Lawrence King possessed a special power that the other boys did not possess: the power to shame normal boys with the taint of his attentions.

From Larry’s perspective Brandon McInerney was “a catch.” Brandon was a Young Marine, a lifeguard candidate, a martial arts adept. Brandon’s acceptance of Larry would affirm Larry’s delusion that Larry was a lovable feminine person. But from Brandon’s perspective, Larry’s declaration of affection branded Brandon as someone who was appealing to homosexuals. Larry’s affection for Brandon was no secret; classmates knew of it; students blabbed about it to the New York Times.

Normal young men crave the affection of real young women, of genuinely feminine human beings. What Larry had to offer was his grotesque parody of a real girl. Larry King longed to be feminine, but he was stuck at effeminate.

When Larry shamed the younger Brandon by publicly expressing his freakish yearning for Brandon, Larry inflicted a kind of spiritual damage on Brandon that Brandon felt could only be undone by making Larry vanish. For fourteen-year-old Brandon McInerney, a pistol became a magic wand that would make the hovering, relentless, cross-dressing, wiggling freak in lipstick and mascara just leave him in peace.

At the funeral service the Reverend Dan Birchfield offered that “God knit Larry together and made him wonderfully complex. Larry was a masterpiece.” In truth, the “wonderfully complex” Larry King had blundered into an emotional minefield that he should never have entered. At a time when so many gay activists are so eager to instruct every heterosexual on the finer points of sensitivity toward homosexuals, where was even one gay activist, or even one mature adult, who should have told young Lawrence King that by pressing his unwelcome attentions on people who did not share his abnormal fantasies he was doing something dangerous?

It’s unreasonable to expect immature youngsters to suddenly become mature when challenged by abnormal people, but it is not too much to ask the adults who are given the responsibility for the welfare of young people in our public schools to put a stop to disruptive displays of emotional neediness by persons with freakishly odd “gender issues.”

The preposterous defense that adults couldn’t curb Larry King’s exhibitionism because girls are allowed to wear dresses to school is beneath contempt. Just ask the Supreme Court. Students in public schools do not enjoy the same liberties of expression as adults in the world at large. Schools are free to enforce gender-specific dress codes on boys and girls. Just ask Austin Perkins.

Austin came to school wearing a dress shirt, slacks and a necktie. For that offense the enforcers at Golden Gate High School in Naples, Florida gave him a dressing down. Principal Bob Spano fretted that “This was a group of students who had been talked to before.”

Perkins explained: “I thought it was better than a polo shirt. So, my friend and I thought why not take the extra step. It says business dress. A coat and tie are business dress. Instead we were thrown in a room where we couldn’t talk.”

Perkins was bewildered by his punishment: “They set a standard, but we exceeded it.” It was a beautiful gesture, but Austin Perkins and his friend were swimming against the tide. American schools are shrines to all things mediocre. On the bright side, Bob Spano doesn’t allow his male students to mince around campus wearing cocktail dresses and “fuck-me” stiletto heels. Back in Oxnard, the adults who should have placed guardrails around Larry King’s exhibitionism foolishly allowed Larry’s compulsive sexually-charged behavior to run wild in the classrooms.

What happened to Larry shouldn’t have happened to a dog, and yet, Larry was shot for the very reasons that many dogs are shot: the adults who were responsible for his welfare let him run loose as he indulged himself in threatening behaviors. Stray dogs are shot for threatening livestock, pets and children. Larry was shot for threatening the equilibrium of straight boys who were struggling to establish stable and confident heterosexual identities. Larry’s over-the-top neediness and his flamboyant exhibitionism should have been curbed. Larry was a regular attendee at gay teen gatherings. That’s where he should have been making passes at other boys, not in the classrooms of his school. By tainting the targets of his affections as “gay bait” Larry had made himself a menace.

It’s discouraging when romantic overtures are spurned, but that’s reality for gays who woo guys who aren’t gay. Was Larry totally clueless when he expressed his affection for Brandon McInerney, or was he trying to rankle the Young Marine? Either way, it was a foolish thing to be doing.

After the ruined body of Lawrence King was taken off life support, the presumptive adults at E.O.Green Junior High, the very liberals who placed the highest value on Larry’s freedom to “express” himself in the classrooms, went about clucking their tongues about how America needed to be more “mature” and how the students at E.O.Green needed to be more accepting of diversity. None of these glib libs had any insight into their contribution to the tragic slaying of Larry King.

First the government compelled these immature youngsters to assemble in E.O.Green’s classrooms and then the government’s paid agents released into their captive midst wiggling, strutting, transvestite she-males with weird compulsions to act out their erotic fantasies by slipping into high heels, lipstick and mascara. After doing that, the leftist utopians refused to acknowledge that they had turned E.O.Green into a hostile environment for normal heterosexual youngsters. Larry King would be alive today if even one wise adult had taken him aside and informed him that his preposterous impersonation of a genuine girl might ignite the anger of young men who desperately wanted to embrace a genuine girl. Larry would never be an acceptable substitute for an authentic girl; his flamboyant blandishments could only make normal boys feel even more painfully loveless.

This isn’t to say that Larry was a bad kid; he was just bent. By all accounts Larry was social, up-beat and funny. His friends adored him; he had many admirers. Larry had remained joyful in the face of adversity; he had been in foster care at a center for abused and neglected children for months. His home life had been as fractured as that of the boy who killed him. Larry deserved better than the reckless adults who encouraged him to perform his faux-female act in front of sexually-frustrated straight boys.

The same reckless adults did Brandon McInerney and his normal male classmates a hideous disservice by exposing them daily to the neediness of she-male female wannabees. From Brandon’s perspective the adult authorities and a freakishly odd gender-bending minority had formed a united front against normal people and the needs of normal people. To be critical of Larry’s transvestite girl impersonation was to be branded a bigot.

At E.O.Green Junior High School traditional heterosexual values had been demoted to co-equal status with every sort of neurotic gender confusion. The please-don’t-call-me-a-girl girls and the please-don’t-call-me-a-boy boys were given special protections. The heterosexual kids who felt like they were trapped in a lunatic asylum were called narrow minded. In the deathless words of the school’s superintendent, Jerry Dannenberg: “Each gender has the right to wear what the other does.” So every day at E.O.Green was like Halloween – but with sexual implications.

E.O.Green is typical of those schools that have turned their classrooms into petting zoos for youngsters with “boutique” gender issues. The white-hot buzz phrase among liberals is “Transgender Equality,” which is the politically-driven pop-psych notion that everyone else is obligated to respect and play along with even the most fantastical delusions of the quirky one percent of the population who claim to be “trapped” in the bodies of the “wrong” gender. It’s no accident that these wondrous delusions peak in early adolescence and later, almost always, fade away.

Deepening the Confusion

Since the death of Larry King, political opportunists have done their best to use his tragic death as a device to advance their pet political agendas. The gay activists have followed a predictable, formulaic, line of exploitation.

Back in 1989, queer theorists Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill published the seminal essay “The Overhauling of Straight America” in which they outlined the political program that became the gay political agenda. Their stated purpose was to gain public acceptance of gay cultural values by systematically desensitizing the American public – to get the average American to “view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion.” These theorists informed the gay community that if they could condition normal Americans to be casually indifferent to homosexuality, then “your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”

The two queer theorists laid out a six-point political agenda. Point six was about funding gay activism. The other five objectives describe what gay radicals have been doing for the last two decades.

Homosexuals were instructed to “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible” in the belief that relentless exposure to gay values would desensitize normal people to those aspects of gay culture that were likely to provoke revulsion.

Homosexuals were told to “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.” The cunning theorists observed that, “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be included by reflex to assume the role of protector.”

These agenda objectives are a perfect description of the classroom environment at E.O.Green Junior High School in Oxnard. The administration and faculty had been completely won over to the notion that homosexuals were a threatened minority whose cultural values were morally neutral. The fashionable notion that gays are an embattled minority culture, just like black folks, was the invention of a homosexual Communist Party activist named Harry Hay who first outlined this new paradigm while sitting at his kitchen table one evening in 1946. Harry had applied Marxist perspectives to gayness and whipped up a manifesto for “gay liberation.” Liberals swallowed Harry Hay’s kitchen-table re-imagination of homosexuality hook, line and sinker. All the teachers at E.O.Green Junior High had been steeped in Harry Hay’s silly stretch of the imagination, so they let Larry King continue to work his negative chemistry among the normal boys.

As point three of their plan to overhaul the heterosexual world the gay theorists instructed their brethren to conceal their promotion of peculiarly gay behaviors in the guise of “anti-discrimination” programs.

The fourth objective was to “Make gays look good” by pounding the public with stories about ever-so-average gay folks or really superior gay folks, but never those creepy pederasts who had swelled the ranks of every gay-pride parade until the day a revised gay agenda prompted their exclusion on the grounds that gays who molest children are bad for public relations. When the homosexual North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was excluded from gay pride parades, an indignant Harry Hay defiantly marched in their stead wearing a sandwich board that proclaimed that he was representing NAMBLA. Harry believed that sex with boys was just something that gays did naturally.

Agenda point five was an instruction to make every critic of gay practices look beastly. The two gay militants sternly predicted that “At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights – long after other gay ads have become commonplace – it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.” The battle planners go on to detail how all critics of the homosexual subculture must be demonized as “deranged menacing punks, thugs, and convicts.”

So, if you are one of those stodgy Puritans who is not totally on board with the splendor of three-day, marathon, high-on-amphetamine, all-male sex romps, or wonderful anonymous hot pumpin’ anal sex in movie theaters, book stores, truck stops and public parks, then you are a candidate for instant gay-power-agenda demonization.

The administration and faculty of E.O.Green Junior High are safe from demonization because they long ago embraced the radical gay political agenda. Kids with weird “boutique” gender issues were lovingly encouraged; all the normal kids were on probation as potential gay bashers. Thus emboldened, Larry King taunted the normal boys with his preposterous effeminate impersonations of a real girl. Every day at that school became an emotion-twisting freak show for the normal boys.

Maybe the nominal grownups at Brandon’s school were in the grips of the pop-psych pundits because they read Newsweek magazine. This liberal rag showcased a confused youngster named Mykell Miller, someone “born female who now considers himself male, hides his breasts under a special compression vest.” Huh? Let’s review: born female; hides his breasts; “considers” himself male. The masculine virtue of every authentic male is cheapened by the use of male pronouns when describing the emotional turmoil of females who reject womanhood.

Just because the ranks of the sexually confused have swollen to the proportions of a bitchy identity group with political ambitions does not make their whacky declamations worthy of belief. These she-males are not authentically whatever they choose to be, they are just frustrated males and females trapped in bodies they are not happy with. What shame-ridden homosexual in deep denial wouldn’t want to have a woman’s body so he could have guiltless sex with men? But wishing it were so doesn’t make the shame-ridden gay guy a woman. It cheapens the stature of women to permit these few conflicted males to usurp female pronouns. It’s too bad that they are so unhappy, but we are not obligated to lessen their distress by entering into their preferred fantasy lands.

Tragically, that’s exactly what the liberals at E.O.Green Junior High did; they dragged every hapless healthy heterosexual student into the fantasy realm of the gender benders. By forcing normal children to endure the daily creep-show impersonations of pretend-gender wannabees, the liberals did something truly cruel. Our schools are not therapy centers. That tiny fraction of our population who pout about not having been born some other sex should be working out their personal conflicts with a therapist in a private setting. They should not be acting out in America’s classrooms.

When liberals make a commitment to be totally inclusive they are making a conscious decision to encourage even the most unstable and delusional youngsters to put their gender confusion on full public display. The consequences of these provocative displays do not concern them. If their decisions ignite predictable conflicts between normal boys and transvestite female impersonators, then that is just too bad. The self-satisfied adults sleep soundly knowing that they did the “inclusive” thing.

Lawrence King was a nice kid, but he was radiating challenging signals to all the normal boys. He was in dire need of a crash course in self-restraint. He needed some life-preserving instruction in how not to taunt normal boys with confusing sexual signals. Instead, the adults at E.O.Green encouraged Larry to be as provocative as he pleased.

The Sad and Predictable Aftermath

“As the memorial outside E.O.Green continues to grow, so has the reaction from around the world, with Larry’s death becoming a cause célèbre for gay, lesbian and transgender communities. Vigils were planned from coast to coast, and thousands of comments have been left on Internet sites dedicated to his memory.” So said the Ventura County Star (2/24/08).

The sparring Democrat contenders who want to be their party’s presidential candidate were quick to be predictably liberal. Hillary Clinton offered that “We must enact a federal hate-crimes law to ensure that gay, lesbian and transgender Americans are protected against violent, bias-motivated crimes. We must send a unified message that hate-based crime will not be tolerated.” Presumably all other violent crimes are love-based assaults. Hillary was adamant that no one “should face intimidation” because of “the way they express their gender identity,” which presumably includes boy transvestites prancing down our public school hallways tricked out in lipstick, mascara, pendant earrings, painted nails, a Dolly Parton wig and pink satin pumps.

Barack Obama chimed in with his “me-too” suggestion that Larry’s death was “. . . an urgent reminder that we need to do more in our schools to foster tolerance and an acceptance of diversity; that we must enact a federal hate-crimes law to protect all LGBT Americans . . .” So, a federal statute would have saved Larry? That’s laughable.

California Assemblyman Mike Eng rushed to introduce a new “diversity education” bill on Larry’s behalf. Mr. Eng’s proposed legislation would compel all public-school students in California to undergo behavior and values modification. As Mr. Eng explained: “We need to teach young people that there’s a curriculum called tolerance education that should be in every school. We should teach young people that diversity is not something to be assaulted, but diversity is something that needs to be embraced because diversity makes California the great state that it is.” He actually said that.

This platitudinous pol can’t quite wrap his mind around what students are to do when they are assaulted by diversity – when they are challenged by insults to their deepest values. The best we can hope for in these situations is barely concealed contempt for the offender. Lawrence King was a neurotic kid with a freak-show wardrobe; no normal boy could easily embrace his peculiar brand of “diversity,” especially because it was an affront to normal male virtues and commonplace male dignity.

For purely political purposes, the gay and liberal commentators had to stigmatize Brandon McInerney as a mindless bigot. The homosexual spin campaign elucidated by the queer theorists Kirk and Pill insisted that gay activists “Portray gays as victims” and “Make the victimizers look bad.” “To be blunt, they must be vilified,” was their formula for success.

True to form, Tom Gregory gives us an example of gay-spin formulaic vilification. In a typical paragraph that both sanctifies Larry King and damns Brandon McInerney, Mr. Gregory seethes,
“For Lawrence King, last Tuesday classmate Brandon McInerney heard the hate and extinguished a brave, beautiful beacon. Society must make Brandon pay for his loathing torturous spirit. He didn’t just commit a brutal murder – he killed a dream. Schools, teachers, and parents must finally learn from Lawrence’s lost life. As for Brandon McInerney his remaining days must be spent in a torturous prison. His release should finally only come wrapped in his death.” (Huffington Post, 2/18/08)

Got that? Brandon must “pay for his torturous spirit” by spending “his remaining days” in a “torturous prison.” Elsewhere, Tom Gregory would have us believe that “Brandon McInerney raised his arm and shot Lawrence King directly in the back of his head – not because he had a grudge with the victim, but because Lawrence King was gay.” That’s not true.

Tom Gregory comes closer to the truth when he mentions that “Eighth-grader Michael Sweeney summed up the bigotry perfectly in his statement: ‘[King] would come to school in high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails – the whole thing. That was freaking the guys out.’” Exactly.

Larry wasn’t just expressing himself; Larry was a brazen provocateur who sought to stir up people’s emotions: his daily spectacle was a masterpiece of passive aggression. Larry was just the sort of “aggressive challenger” whom the queer theorists had sought to conceal.

Interviews with students at E.O.Green Junior High have shed some light on the emotional dynamics behind Larry’s assassination. “In the days before the shooting, Brandon had been heard telling Larry to leave him alone, that he would hurt him. Something was building, friends said.” (Ventura County Star, 2/24/08) [Emphasis added]

This means that Larry was provoking Brandon and that Brandon had tried to ward off Larry with words.

“Brandon’s friend Lauren said the rumors about Larry ‘hitting on’ Brandon were heating up. Kids were joking that Brandon must be gay if Larry was acting that way toward him.

“Eduardo Segure, an eighth-grader, said he saw Larry looking at Brandon the day before the shooting and saying he liked him. Brandon turned to Larry and told him to ‘fuck off’ before walking away. (Ventura County Star, 2/24/08) [Emphasis added]

“At lunch time that day, Haily said, Larry went up to a table where Brandon was eating and asked to sit down. Brandon and his friends ran away, mocking Larry as they left.” (Ventura County Star, 2/24/08) [Emphasis added]

In other words, Larry was stalking Brandon. Brandon had told Larry repeatedly, using both words and gestures, that he wanted no part in Larry’s she-male, faux-girl, dress-up drama. It gets worse . . .

“ ‘There were a lot of rumors,’ said Brandon’s friend Jessica, who never saw any arguments between the two. ‘No one knows what was going through his head. No one really knows for sure.’” (Ventura County Star)

From her words “there were a lot of rumors” we may infer that Larry’s dogged public pursuit of Brandon had effectively subverted Brandon’s best efforts to build a reputation as a healthy traditional heterosexual American male. Larry had destroyed something of immense value to Brandon: his good reputation.

Therefore, Tom Gregory’s assertion that Larry King was shot “not because he [Brandon] had a grudge with the victim, but because Lawrence King was gay” is an intentional lie. Tom Gregory is just pushing the gay-agenda formula.

Brandon McInerney is being held in a juvenile facility in Ventura County because his family can’t make the $770,000 bail. He has been charged with first-degree murder, which could bring a penalty of fifty years in prison. The hate-crime kicker could bring another three years. He has been charged as an adult because his fourteenth birthday came two weeks before he drove his gay-stalker nemesis from his life. The formidable gay propaganda apparatus is busy portraying Brandon as the Devil on Earth even though the evidence indicates that this kid was just preserving his honor. Where were the gay-friendly adults when Larry needed to be told that asking Brandon to be his Valentine in front of all the other kids might be the last ignorant thing he ever did.

Larry was shot on February 12th. He was kept on life support until Valentine’s Day, when doctors harvested his body organs.

Here’s the truth: the “gay community” isn’t about to counsel any gay person to curb his effeminacy or his flamboyance. On the contrary, one of the most lavishly-funded mouth organs of the gay political agenda, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) began pushing its public-school lesson plans for elementary schools back in 2004 – a plan that includes lessons on cross dressing and “non-gender conforming clothing.”

Their cross-dressing lesson is titled “What’s Up With The Dress Jack?” which dwells approvingly on a pre-Christian tribal society that encouraged its youngsters to dress and behave in ways that make them happy “without the limits of stereotypical gender roles.” This lesson plan strives to shape the attitudes of children from kindergarten through sixth grade and it includes an ammo box full of challenging questions formulated to discourage children from accepting traditional American standards of gender-appropriate clothing and behavior.

For example, the gay and lesbian network’s lesson plan would challenge little kids to defend their culture’s behavioral norms by bombarding them with such questions as “Were men able to wear dresses in the past, and not today?”

This is a form of mental molestation. What kindergarten child is prepared to tell his closeted gay teacher that the loose robes worn by desert tribesmen and the kilts worn by ancient Egyptians and by some not-so-ancient Scotsmen were not “dresses” in the modern Western sense of that word? These garments were exclusively male attire at the times and in the societies where they were worn. The gay and lesbian propaganda networks are not beneath twisting the truth to advance their agenda for overhauling straight America. Gays are targeting our children because children do not have the critical powers that adults have. As one gay propagandist put it: “Whoever captures the kids owns the future.”

So gays weren’t about to save Larry King from himself – gays encourage provocative behavior. On the occasion of his death Larry was instantly canonized as a saintly martyr to the cause of transvestite liberation, or gay expression, or whatever. No one called him a relentless irritant, a clueless girl-wannabee who taunted normal boys, or a creepy destroyer of other boy’s cherished reputations.

A negligent school administration abandoned Brandon McInerney to cope, unassisted, with the irritating, corrosive and ultimately slanderous attentions of an aggressive and relentless homosexual who was almost two years his senior. The adults at E.O.Green congratulated themselves on being “progressive” and “urbane” and besides, they thought Larry was charming. Larry was sweet-faced and bubbly. What possible harm could Larry and his ridiculous girl act stir up?

What transpired between Larry King and Brandon McInerney was deeply personal. There was nothing cold blooded about Larry’s assassination. Larry had been repeatedly forewarned that his weird attentions were deeply aggravating. Now the “laid back” adults in Oxnard are trying to wash the blood of Larry King off their hands by dismissing Brandon McInerney as someone who just mysteriously “snapped.” Brandon didn’t “just snap,” he crumbled under the accumulating indignities of Larry King’s very public homosexual blandishments. The indifference to Brandon’s ordeal by a clueless liberal administration only added to his burden.

Since when did “stop” stop meaning stop? Larry King’s testosterone-fueled displays of affection would have qualified as sexual harassment if he had been pestering any girl who had told him to bug off, but because Brandon was a bigger boy, though two years younger than his pursuer, every last teacher and administrator refused to rescue Brandon.

The adults felt protective toward little Larry; the gay agenda had been working its magic on them for two decades – the adults at E.O.Green had been massaged by its perspectives all of their adult lives; it was a familiar mantra in the teacher academies. Teachers are taught to focus their attention on “anti-discrimination” and to accept provocative homosexual behaviors as “diversity,” just as the queer theorists had instructed.

Two decades of gay propaganda had rendered the adults at E.O.Green Junior High School utterly unprepared to defend any traditional boy from the relentless encroachments of a clueless homosexual. In their alternative reality any normal boy who rejects an older male homosexual tricked out in high heels, lipstick and mascara must be a hate-filled bigot.

What sort of weird republic compels its children to spend their days in such humiliating environments?